BearWorks MSU Graduate Theses Spring 2018 The Role of Freshwater Drum as a Host of Freshwater Mussels, Unionidae Michael S. Martin Missouri State University, [email protected] As with any intellectual project, the content and views expressed in this thesis may be considered objectionable by some readers. However, this student-scholar’s work has been judged to have academic value by the student’s thesis committee members trained in the discipline. The content and views expressed in this thesis are those of the student-scholar and are not endorsed by Missouri State University, its Graduate College, or its employees. Follow this and additional works at: https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses Part of the Biology Commons Recommended Citation Martin, Michael S., "The Role of Freshwater Drum as a Host of Freshwater Mussels, Unionidae" (2018). MSU Graduate Theses. 3272. https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/3272 This article or document was made available through BearWorks, the institutional repository of Missouri State University. The work contained in it may be protected by copyright and require permission of the copyright holder for reuse or redistribution. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ROLE OF FRESHWATER DRUM AS A HOST OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS, UNIONIDAE A Masters Thesis Presented to The Graduate College of Missouri State University TEMPLATE In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science, Biology By Michael Stephan Martin May 2018 Copyright 2018 by Michael Stephan Martin ii THE ROLE OF FRESHWATER DRUM AS A HOST OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS, UNIONIDAE Biology Missouri State University, May 2018 Master of Science Michael Stephan Martin ABSTRACT The Freshwater Drum, Aplodinotus grunniens, serves as fish host to multiple mussel species. Some mussel species are “drum specialists” in the sense that Freshwater Drum is apparently the only host that they utilize. Freshwater Drum diet consists partly of mussels, which it crushes with specially adapted pharyngeal teeth. The Freshwater Drum’s habit of feeding on mussels should favor adaptations to use the species as a host. Mussels that use Freshwater Drum as host could adapt to attract the fish. I predicted that many other species will have some ability to use Freshwater Drum as host because of its habit of seeking bivalve prey. I also predicted that species that use Freshwater Drum as their sole host should 1) have high metamorphosis success (%M) and 2) exhibit adaptations to avoid predation while attracting a predaceous host. I investigated the host potential between nine species of freshwater mussel and Freshwater Drum with laboratory host tests. These tests quantified the %M of two mussel species (T. truncata and L. fragilis) that are known to use Freshwater Drum as a host and quantified the %M of two new mussel-host relationships (O. reflexa and L. abrupta). The results show that Freshwater Drum exhibit a very high %M when hosting “drum specialist” mussels with little variability between individual fish; however, when Freshwater Drum host mussels that are not “drum specialists” the %M is much lower and more variable between individual fish. KEYWORDS: drum specialist, host, adaptations, metamorphosis percent, variability This abstract is approved as to form and content _______________________________ M. Christopher Barnhart Chairperson, Advisory Committee Missouri State University iii THE ROLE OF FRESHWATER DRUM AS A HOST OF FRESHWATER MUSSELS, UNIONIDAE By Michael Stephan Martin A Masters Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College Of Missouri State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Science, Biology May 2018 Approved: _______________________________________ M. Christopher Barnhart, PhD _______________________________________ Alicia Mathis, PhD _______________________________________ Debra Finn, PhD _______________________________________ Julie Masterson, PhD: Dean, Graduate College In the interest of academic freedom and the principle of free speech, approval of this thesis indicates the format is acceptable and meets the academic criteria for the discipline as determined by the faculty that constitute the thesis committee. The content and views expressed in this thesis are those of the student- scholar and are not endorsed by Missouri State University, its Graduate College, or its employees. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to start by thanking my advisor Dr. Chris Barnhart. I genuinely appreciate the time, guidance, and resources that he has provided during the course of this project. It has been a sincere honor to be able to work with such a talented and highly respected scientist. I would like to recognize my committee members Dr. Deb Finn and Dr. Alicia Mathis. Thank you for your comments and ideas that helped to shape the final editing of this project. Dr. Dan Beckman and Dr. John Havel were committee advisors that were very helpful in the beginning stages of this project and I would like to thank them as well. Many thanks to Neosho National Fish Hatchery, Osage Catfisheries, Chesapeake State Fish Hatchery, and Langston University Aquaculture for providing and transporting the fish used in this study. Thanks also go to Dr. Joyce Hill, Ed Miller, Dr. Conrad Kleinholz, Brian Simmons, Dave Hendrix, Beth Glidewell, Bryce Maynard, and Amy Maynard. Most importantly, I would like to thank my wife Karah. Thank you, my love, for everything. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Overview ..............................................................................................................................1 Life-Cycle of Unionoidea ........................................................................................1 Host Specificity ........................................................................................................2 Thesis Objectives .....................................................................................................3 References ................................................................................................................5 Chapter 1: Host Tests with Freshwater Drum......................................................................7 Introduction ..............................................................................................................7 Methods..................................................................................................................11 Results ....................................................................................................................15 Discussion ..............................................................................................................18 References ..............................................................................................................25 Chapter 2: Host Tests with Obliquaria reflexa ..................................................................38 Introduction ............................................................................................................38 Methods..................................................................................................................40 Results ....................................................................................................................44 Discussion ..............................................................................................................45 References ..............................................................................................................48 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Chapter 1 Mussel Origin Data .............................................................................29 Table 2. Fish Feeding Summary ........................................................................................30 Table 3. Fish Origin Data ...................................................................................................50 Table 4. Chapter 2 Mussel Origin Data .............................................................................51 Table 5. Summary of Chapter 2 Host Tests .......................................................................51 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Recovery of Fatmucket sloughs .........................................................................31 Figure 2. Recovery of Black Sandshell sloughs ................................................................32 Figure 3. Recovery of Neosho Mucket sloughs .................................................................32 Figure 4. Recovery of Round Pigtoe sloughs ....................................................................33 Figure 5. Recovery of Plain Pocketbook sloughs ..............................................................33 Figure 6. Recovery of Pink Mucket sloughs/juveniles ......................................................34 Figure 7. Pink Mucket percent metamorphosis on Freshwater Drum ...............................34 Figure 8. Recovery of Threehorn Wartyback sloughs/juveniles .......................................35 Figure 9. Threehorn Wartyback percent metamorphosis on Freshwater Drum .................35 Figure 10. Recovery of Fragile Papershell sloughs/juveniles ............................................36 Figure 11. Fragile Papershell percent metamorphosis on Freshwater Drum .....................36 Figure 12. Recovery of Deertoe sloughs/juveniles ............................................................37 Figure 13. Deertoe percent metamorphosis on Freshwater